Debating SIEV-X

23 September 2002 — 10:00am

SIEV-X continues to intrigue many readers.

Barbara Andrews says Australians wouldn't care about the SIEV-X dead whatever the Government did or did not do. Mary Werkhoven wouldn't be concerned had the Government not exploited the issue at the election, Richard Goodwin warns us not to dismiss a "stuff up", and SIEV-Xers Kate Wildermuthand Kay Kan reply to Tam Long in SIEV-X: Truth is out there

***

Barbara Andrews

I begin by saying that this will be self-indulgent, and that I openly admit openly that, while not a Labor supporter by nature or nurture, I am extremely disappointed that Kim Beazley never became Prime Minister. I believe that having a decent, fat, nice, jolly bloke in The Lodge would have gone a long way towards removing the aggressive selfishness which most would admit is growing in our society.

Advertisement

That is not why the story of SIEV-X distresses me. On the same night I heard about the sinking, my then-1-year old son crawled up to me for the first time as I sat on the floor and gave me a hug. This brought home to me more strongly the anguish of watching my child drifting away on the water and then sinking beneath it, with me remaining above. I imagined losing this person who was my life.

Imagining it is bad enough, and you can only imagine it if you have a child. Parents may know what I mean, but I'm beginning to believe, having heard people's reactions to the story, that not all parents either feel the same, or ascribe their own feelings to other parents.

The government of this country does not care, because they know the people of this country do not care. Hit us with more proof of the lies we were told and wanted to believe, and we just dig in more. The Prime Minister knows his people rather better than we would care to admit.

As an example, try this. Please note, you who are of opposing mind, that this is not a conspiracy theory, and I do not suggest or believe the following is the case. I use it as an extreme example of what the Australian people would do.

Imagine that the impending surge of non-legal arrivals last year was known to Government intelligence, and was to be used as the lifeline for the Government. (In this case the Tampa incident would have been a lucky break allowing them to send in the defence forces in front of TV cameras.)

Imagine further that the Government expressly planned to allow these vessels to approach Australian territory in order to demonstrate just how much they had to be repulsed. Imagine again that the boat designated SIEV-X was, in fact, known to be coming, but surveillance was withdrawn so it could approach Christmas Island, thereby fulfilling its political purpose.

But then you-know-what happened, which would not have happened had surveillance been kept up or had the boat been turned back or its occupants rescued.

If this were the case, and it became public knowledge, I believe quite firmly that it would not sway the Australian people from their rejection of compassion for the victims, or from their rejection of any notion of the Government's responsibility . On the contrary, I believe we would block it out and solidify our support for the government in the same way that many people do when they see that any of their closely-held beliefs has been proved patently and unutterably wrong.

There is no point appealing to our sense of truth and justice; they are no longer as important to us as having someone to blame. This is what Australia has become.

***

Richard Goodwin in Narara

The labyrinthine goings-on reported in the SIEV-X are far too complicated for me to understand. (You've probably been told many times that many Aussies simply don't care anyway. I have spoken with plenty of people who seriously thought the whole Pacific solution/Tampa episode would have been better handled if the asylum-seekers had been left to drown, because "We don't want 'em here").

However there is still plenty of validity in your trying to cast light on what happened. I think this government has been particularly good at obfuscating and introducing red herrings and complications so difficult to follow that people give up trying to understand what happened. They are too bogged down in detail to see the whole picture (it happened with Reithy and the Patricks Stevedore affair).

It would not surprise me if there were a cover-up, but I always remember the old words of wisdom: "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." You say that newly-released documents show that the government knew of the boat's location. This begs the question, "Who in the government knew?" and then we have to find out what they did about it, who was told, what they did about it, and so on.

If Ministers were involved, or even highly-ranked bureaucrats, we may never know. However, the procedure for someone knowing, and then action taking place to either aid or ignore the ship, is full of potential mishaps.

I wonder if we're talking about a balls-up in the bureaucratic process, and the cover-up is retrospective to hide the balls-up ...

***

Mary Werkhoven

Perhaps we Howardophobes would be less bothered if John Howard and his Howardophiles had not, and still did not, sound so much like guilty schoolboys saying "Oh, no Sir. It wasn't me, Sir. Those Indonesian kids did it. I knew nothing about it. I'm really offended that you are asking me about it."

When it was known back in October 2001 that SIEV-X had sunk, Howard should have expressed deep sorrow at the loss of life and a regret that our extensive surveillance had not spotted the foundering boat. He should have condemned Indonesian police and officials who collaborated with people smugglers and shown a determination to do everything possible to help the unfortunate survivors.

Instead he played politics and demonised these wretched people.

Phillip Ruddock, alone and palely loitering, seems to have had his soul stolen by a hobgoblin (or by the garden-gnomish John Howard).

Tam Long and others so keen to defend the indefensible should realise that Australians such as myself believe that we should do something about the "beam in our own eyes" before worrying about the "mote in the eyes" of others. Their neglect does not excuse our apathy.

***

Kay Kan in Sydney

I found Tam Long's article SIEV-X: Truth is out thereinconclusive. She says she keeps an open mind on all possibilities and seems to want the sinking of SIEV-X to be investigated, yet she seems more intent on criticising those who want that to happen rather than calling for all the facts to be made public.

Tam Long claims that we need to find out what happened with SIEV-X. If so, she would fully support the Senate committees' request for all the witnesses it requires, as well as the call for a judicial review to investigate all aspects of the people smuggling disruption task force. I do not see that call anywhere in her piece except for her statement that she is troubled that some senior officials were not allowed to give evidence.

Because she considers the reasons for their non-attendance as plausible, Tam Long is prepared to accept the gaps in our knowledge that these witnesses could have completed. Such gaps are not helpful in trying to get to the bottom of Australia's involvement in SIEV-X.

She claims that she does not exclude the possibility of some Australian involvement, (by omission or perhaps even commission) in the sinking of SIEV-X. Again, if this were so, she would support the attempts to investigate all aspects of Australia's involvement with SIEV-X and not condemn those who share this view.

Police investigating a crime consider all scenarios and all parties as potential suspects in their search for evidence. After all, when the claims about Justice Kirby met the light of day, they evaporated. If the claims about Australian involvement in SIEV-X are without substance, then they too will evaporate - but this can only happen when the Senate Inquiry or a judicial review has been able to pursue the matter as far as they can.

Tam Long claims that because Indonesia has an appalling human rights record we should prefer to assume they are responsible. This is dangerously close to the accusation that Tam Long has made of others when she says they search backwards to select and analyse evidence in light of predetermined guilt only. Without a questioning perspective, evidence will not present itself. Tam Long says she would be convinced by proper argument. How will that argument emerge if evidence is not sought?

She claims some of those who want to get to the bottom of the SIEV-X matter dislike John Howard and dismisses them as Howardophobes. This labelling is an attempt to discredit those who have serious concerns about SIEV-X. However, if we follow this logic, what are the Howardophiles doing in calling for the appearance of witnesses, evidence and a judicial review?

In fact Howardophiles and Howardophobes should both be calling for an investigation because then the evidence would then be available for all to see.

Tam Long says that the best way to prevent further tragedies is to look forward and stop the people smuggling, and that those who focus on SIEV-X choose to look backwards. This argument is a distraction and muddies the waters in the SIEV-X matter. Firstly, we can only look to the future successfully if we both understand and come to terms with the present and events leading to it, otherwise the future will simply be a repetition of the past.

Secondly, to focus on the future and ignore the present is like letting the pedestrian hit by a car on a busy road bleed to death while we discuss where the pedestrian crossing should be put to prevent further accidents. Saving the lives of people in immediate danger (eg calling an ambulance for the bleeding pedestrian) is a completely different issue to planning future policy (eg deciding where to put the pedestrian crossing). If the ambulance does not turn up, we ask why - and there have been investigations into this, including one in the last few days in NSW. So both issues need to be addressed, and not necessarily by the same people.

In the case of SIEV-X, the equivalent of the ambulance did not arrive despite calls from the Australian Federal Police, Coastwatch and ASTJIC. I would like to know why. Like Tam Long, I am troubled by the possibility that Australia may have contributed to the deaths of 353 people. The only way to deal with something that is troubling is to assess it, and understand it.

That is really moving on. Tam Long seems to think that when something is troubling, or counter-intuitive, then it either did not occur or should not be considered.

***

Kate Wildermuth

Disclosure: I have written to Webdiary and the SIEV-X site under the nom de plume Charles Diamond. I wish to put my real name to this response as well as future Webdiary contributions.

I have read and contributed to SIEV-X site www.sievx.com for months, and I can't let the latest piece by Tam Long in SIEV-X: Truth is out there go by without comment. It is full of personal attacks and exaggerations of the views held by the people I call SIEVXers.

1. The letter includes offensive comments such as "groupies". They tell much about Tam Long and nothing about SIEVXer's.

2. The SIEV-X site is not what Tam Long wishes it to be. The site is dedicated to the question "Did the Australian Government contribute to the deaths of 300 women and children?" Most people read that quote at the top of the home page and understand what the site is about. It is not about the UN, the general issue of refugees or the Indonesian Government. It never pretended to be.

I am an Australian citizen. I am interested in uncovering the truth in relation to the Australian Government and it's agencies about the unthrown children and SIEV-X. I want to know what was done by the Australian Government in my name. During the election campaign we were told that SIEV-X sank in Indonesian waters. If that was true SIEV-X would not have been examined by the Senate inquiry.

3. The recent allegations about the AFP disruption program in Indonesia raised by the Sunday program need to be investigated. At this point the accusations of the AFP paying to have boats sunk should be neither dismissed as a crazy conspiracy theory nor seen as proof SIEV-X was sunk by the Australian Government. The issues of the Australian Federal Police's Disruption Program are lengthy and still unfolding. I urge Tam Long and Webdiarists to read the transcript of the Sunday program as a starting point for understanding this issue. (sievx)

4. SIEVXers have been reading and researching SIEV-X since last year. Tony Kevin and SIEVXers have a wider general knowledge of the issue that goes far beyond one speech. Tam Long's pieces show a lack of knowledge in relation to SIEV-X. So go away, do a lot of research and reading, and catch up.